Creationists damage Christianity? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-10)

Posted By on September 18, 2019


So, we recently received an email stating that we’re
damaging Christianity by ignoring science. OK. Now, we’re going to examine that claim that
biblical creationists are damaging Christianity this week on Creation Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name is Richard Fangrad. and I’m Matt Bondy. This week we’re going to spend the whole
show examining the claim that young earth creationists, or Biblical creationists, are
damaging Christianity because we ignore science. Yeah, ok, well that’s quite a claim! But it’s really 2 claims isn’t it? Yes, that’s right. Robert B from the US, he wrote in claiming
that creationists are harming Christianity, that’s number 1, and secondly, that we’re
ignoring science. Right, OK, well let’s read what he wrote, it’s not very
long, and then we’ll respond to his claims. He wrote, “You are damaging Christianity deeply. You think science is wrong just where you
need it to be—which should light up the warnings in your brain. The concepts that you list as evidence are
areas you don’t understand. Science primarily does not have opinions. It has data; data that does not give a living —- [and there
was a swearword there that we deleted out]… a living [—–] what anyone thinks. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones does not prove
a young anything — and the scientists working on that material understand that where you don’t You would all be well advised to go actually
get into a real science program (tho I doubt you could) and learn the material.===>I did.” OK. So he continues, “Consider—the percentage
of scientists who believe the Earth is young is smaller than the percentage of people who
would be clinically insane in the same population. ALERT!! “I.e., in order to claim that there is a
debate at all, you will have to have more people on ‘your side’ of the debate than
the percentage of clinically insane. You don’t. You have Kurt Wise disease. You are harming Christianity.” OK! Alright, there’re some pretty bold claims
there, and the reason we want to examine this on the show today is that there are Christians,
especially those who have gone through higher education, including most seminaries, who
would make similar claims. Right. The claim is that, in order to take the Bible,
and especially Genesis, at face value (the way that we do as a ministry),
you need to reject science. And by rejecting modern science, biblical
creationists are harming Christianity because we appear to be anti-scientific. Anti-scientific, yeah. Just want to point out (you probably picked
this up as well) the tone of this email. You likely noticed that includes kind of
an insulting, accusing tone. Now, not all people would have stated things
in the way that Robert did in his email to us. But we often see that same kind of tone
from people in the church who are convinced that the world is old. And for those of you who do understand that
Genesis records a recent creation in 6 days, you might have had these kind of accusations
leveled at you as well. The idea is that we’re anti-intellectual,
and it’s only the low IQ, never finished high-school, country bumpkin that would ever
conclude that God created recently, in 6 days and there was a global flood. Right. And just to give another example of that,
we can play a portion of a radio show where William Lane Craig, who, by the way, has won
many debates arguing against atheists, but here he’s commenting on a recent creation. Listen to this. “Yes, I’ve seen a comparable statistic
that says that over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Now when you think about that, Kevin, that
is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that
the universe is only around 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense,
and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think
about it.” OK, so again, the accusation is that it’s
“nonsense”, he says, to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, and that’s
it’s “embarrassing” and “shocking”. And again, he’s using those kinds of emotional
words and, really, the idea, the kind of flavour that comes across, is that pastors who believe
that, well – they’re just out of touch with reality. It’s just a completely ridiculous thing to think. Yes, and he’s disappointed that 50%
of pastors believe that. Well, I’m, kind of disappointed that it’s
only 50 percent! Since the world really is less than 10,000
years old, based on simple deduction from the Word of God, what’s really “shocking”
and “embarrassing” is that 50% of pastors think it’s older! Right! Pastors are supposed to give instruction from
God’s Word, and instruct that way. Now, we’ve made a lot of statements
here, in the last couple of minutes, that need further explanation, and we’re going
to do exactly that after a short break. Did you know that the DNA code is itself governed
by another code known as the epigenetic code? This physical and chemical code determines
which genes are switched on. Changes in this code can greatly alter an
organism without altering one letter of its DNA. For instance, scientists have managed to change
the coat colour in mice by feeding them a diet that switches off certain genes. Epigenetics poses new problems for evolution. For instance, a group of animals with a camouflaged
coat colour might be favoured in a particular environment, but if this coat colour is due
to epigenetics and not the actual DNA code, then the non-camouflaged animals would be
selected against in vain. When the epigenetic modification is reset
by a diet change, natural selection is sent back to square one. The field of epigenetics, therefore, creates
problems for evolution and strongly points to a master programmer who invented the DNA
and epigenetic codes. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website CREATION.com. So, if you’ve just tuned in, this week we
are looking into accusations made against CMI, and really anyone who takes
God’s Word at face value, understanding that God created recently. Yes, and that’s a big part of the response: what does
the Bible say about the age of the earth. Many people think that it doesn’t say anything
about the age of the earth. And we’ll deal with that in a few minutes. Let’s begin by going back through that
email point by point. OK. So right at the start, well, after accusing
us of “damaging Christianity deeply” he says, “You think science is wrong” And
here goes the broken record again. We’ve said this so many times on the show,
in Creation magazine, on creation.com, in books, in videos… it’s not about the science! It’s not about the science. We don’t think ‘science’ is wrong, as
we’re accused of thinking, in the sense of real, operational science like chemistry
and physics. We think that the materialistic philosophy
of history masquerading as science is wrong. Wouldn’t it be great if everybody commenting
on the origins debate anywhere, regardless of their position on the issues, from the
Biblical creationist to the atheistic evolutionist and everything in between, could get this
one simple concept: that the debate is not about science. The debate doesn’t happen at the level of science. It happens at the level of history. That’s where it happens. OK, so just to explain it one more time, the
things that relate to origins (or where things came from) are not just about science. If we were to ask you, what is the scientific method? What does science involve? Most of you could get at least the basics. You might say things like, well, science involves
making observations, or doing experiments or things that are repeatable,
that’s the science. And that is what science is. That is what science is. Now if we ask, what’s history all about? Well, I mean, most people are going to get
that too, right? It’s about past events. And some of you might feel your blood pressure
rising at this point recalling a past history test where you had to remember all those dates
of critical events and so on. History is about that. The origins debate involves a mixture of
science and history. It’s not just science. Right. It’s a lot like forensics. Forensics involves a mixture of science and history. For example, at a crime scene, investigators
might dust for fingerprints, and collect hair or blood for DNA analysis. That’s the science. That’s the science, that’s right. But then a story is made up about how all
the data from science, and all the facts can be explained by a particular history. And some stories, or histories will fit
the facts better than others. You know, it’s like: the butler did it,
or, the maid did it, right? And that’s where it goes to the courtroom
scene near the end of the show. Different histories can be imagined to explain
exactly the same data. The debate isn’t over the data. It’s over the history applied to the data. Yeah. And that’s really similar to the creation/evolution
and age-of-the-earth debate. In palaeontology, for example, when scientists
find fossils they don’t come with tags on them that say things like, “Hi, I’m 75
million years old, and I like to eat hamburgers, and I enjoy taking naps on Sunday
afternoon after church.” None of that information comes from the fossil. No. On the fossil itself, and its surroundings there in
the rock, is the where the science is done. It could all be documented very carefully,
I suppose it could be tested chemically. Nobody disagrees with that because it’s
an observation. You disagree, you go and do the experiment yourself. There it is. That’s the science.
There’s no debate over that. You know, it’s like, “Look there’s a fossil.
It’s in the ground.” Nobody debates that. Right, exactly. But what makes the fossil much more interesting
is: when did it die? How long was it alive? What did it eat? What was its social interaction with the other animals? How did this animal get encased in the rock? Those are the kinds of things that we really
want to know about. But the problem is, those things are not observations. At this point it’s like moving to the courtroom
scene, just like you talked about. A story is made up to explain the ideas and,
just like in forensics, some stories (or histories) will fit better than others. That’s right. That’s the debate. So, right at the beginning of this email it’s
clear that this person doesn’t understand this basic concept of the origins debate. The debate is about different histories, not
the science. And the same is true of William Lane Craig’s comments. As brilliant as a debater as he is (and he is), he’s missed
this foundational aspect of the origins debate. He’s commenting specifically on the related
issue of the age of the earth. Which is very much a debate of different histories. Historical debate. And we’ll continue responding to the email
when we get back. Genesis Verse by Verse is a Bible study tool
available on CMI’s website designed to help Pastors, students and laymen alike study the
book of Genesis like never before. And it is completely free! Simply look up any verse in Genesis 1-11 or
just scroll down the page. The centre column provides links to articles
that answer common questions pertaining to that verse and the topics that naturally arise from them. Visit Creation.com to use it today! On this week’s episode our focus is on the
often not so kind accusations that creationists are damaging Christianity. That we’re making Christianity look like
it’s for unscientific, uneducated people. But, that’s not the case. No, no. So, continuing with the email, Robert says,
“Science primarily does not have opinions. It has data — data that does not give a living
[—-] what anyone thinks.” And the response from Dr Johnathan Sarfati,
who responded to this email online, he says, “We agree that there is an objective reality
that is independent of what anyone thinks. Postmodernism denies this. That is why science developed in a biblical
creationist Christian worldview during the Middle Ages, but was stillborn in other worldviews.” Right. In the article, that you can look up online,
by the way, at creation.com/damaging, Dr Sarfati has included weblinks to other articles detailing
what he just said about science arising within a biblical worldview, and not other worldviews. Fascinating stuff. Yeah, we actually did a show on this last year called,
“The biblical basis for modern science.” Now, that show is based on conclusions from secular
historians of science, who show that it was the biblical worldview that gave rise to science,
much to the surprise of most people today. Right – and some of those historians! And just as a side note, it was that episode
that was submitted to the International Christian Film Festival and got us nominated for “Best TV show”,
Creation Magazine LIVE! – this year, in 2018. As we record this here today, we’re not
sure if we won yet, that’s going to be announced in a couple of weeks, but it’s nice to have
the value of this show appreciated by other Christian filmmakers and those in Christian media. Right. You know, that is nice.
But you know, what we treasure even more than
that, is the affect that the show, and the information we present, has on you, the viewers. For some of you, you’ve told us that you
were an atheist before watching the show and the content helped you to recognize that the
Bible is God’s Word, and it’s totally true, and you were moved to make Jesus
Lord of your life! That’s great – and those comments are
so encouraging! Just to know that God is using this little show,
Creation magazine LIVE, to draw people to Himself. It makes it all worth it! Yeah, exactly. Anyways, let’s get back to the email here. He makes this comment, “Soft tissue in dinosaur
bones does not prove a young anything—and the scientists working on that material understand
that, where you don’t.” OK – and Dr Sarfati’s response was, “…real science shows that there is soft tissue (and protein and DNA) in dino bones. Real science shows how fast these things break
down—especially DNA. What real science does NOT show is the
millions-of-years dogma. But since the discoverers believed in this
dogma, they were extremely sceptical at first.” Then he quotes Dr Mary Schweitzer, who is a pioneer
in this area and not a creationist, by the way. She believes that the bones in which she’s finding
this material really are millions of years old. That’s right, yeah. And you can see her struggle to reconcile
her beliefs about the age of the bones with the incredible discoveries that she’s making in the lab. Yes, exactly. Dr Schweitzer said, “When you think about
it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should
be gone, it should be degraded completely.” And note, that’s real science! The rapid decay of organic material is an observation. Anyone who disagrees with that observation
can do the test themselves. Do it yourself, yes. Throw a piece of meat out on the lawn and
you can watch it decay. She also said that when the soft tissue was first
discovered, and this is an interesting quote, “‘It was totally shocking,’ Schweitzer says. ‘I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.'” So, her beliefs about the bone’s age (being
millions of years old) caused her to doubt what she was seeing in the lab. So, she made absolutely sure that there really
was soft tissue, and what appear to be blood vessels and blood cells, there in a T-rex bone. Dr Sarfati also mentioned that, “We are
well aware that she has tried to explain the results away, but most unconvincing from the viewpoint of known chemistry — see: ‘Dinosaur soft tissue: In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years’.” That’s a link to an article that outlines
a sort of grasping at straws proposal to hold on to the belief that the bones
are millions of years old. Right. Iron in blood cells can act as a preservative. It wouldn’t be as good as formaldehyde but
for the true believer in millions of years, that’s the answer: iron saves that day! We can keep believing that the bones are millions
of years old, even though they contain unfossilised soft tissue, because iron has preserved them. Right. But for how long can iron preserve soft tissue? That’s the question. If iron isn’t as good a preservative as
formaldehyde, could formaldehyde really preserve organic compounds for 70 million years? No. Right. I mean, you could put that bone in formaldehyde,
bury it deep in the earth, shield it from any outside energy or chemicals, and it’s still going to
break down over that unimaginable length of time. Formaldehyde doesn’t stop decay altogether,
it just slows it down. Now, these bones were found in Montana and
they weren’t protected the way I just described. No, no they weren’t. About the only thing that will stop decay
is freezing at absolute zero, about minus 273 degrees Celsius. Right, and it doesn’t get that cold in Montana. No, it doesn’t. Let’s take a short break and then we’ll continue. Dinosaur tracks have been found all over the
world, but curiously, these track ways are almost always straight. Usually, when animals are relaxed, they meander
around in all directions. But if they’re frightened, they tend to
move fast in one direction. So why do dinosaur tracks suggest they were
panicking when they made the footprints? The global flood recorded in the Bible provides
a compelling answer. As the waters rose during Noah’s Flood,
various mechanisms—such as tidal movements of the water—caused flood-laid sediments
to be briefly exposed. This allowed dinosaurs that had previously
been caught up in the currents, to make tracks on the freshly-laid sediments, before the
sediments were inundated again. Thus dinosaurs were experiencing global panic
when they made their footprints, and that explains why their track ways are so often straight. The preservation of tracks also requires their
rapid burial—as would happen in the Flood. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website CREATION.com. So, this week were responding to the claim
that creationists damage Christianity by rejecting modern science. We’re following an email sent to the ministry. One of our scientists, Dr Jonathan Sarfati
responded to it showing that, no, we do not reject modern science. What we do reject, is the historical framework
that the scientific data is put into. Right, yes. Now, we really hope that this week’s show
is an encouragement to those of you who might have been ridiculed in the past for taking a stand for
the Bible in this area of the age of the earth. Actually, there’s a great article on our
website titled, “101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe” – it’s at
creation.com/age. And that’s an article you could share, you
could share that link with people who think it’s unscientific to believe in a recent creation. Ok, just before the break we were taking about
soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Now, if this is the first time you’ve heard
about Dr Schweitzer’s amazing discoveries, you can get up to speed on that by reading
the article at creation.com/dino-dna Also, note that below the article there is
a long list of “Related Articles”. That’s a gold mine for more details about
scientific evidence supporting dinosaurs living up until quite recently. That’s right. OK, so let’s continue with the email. Robert writes, “You would all be well advised
to go actually get into a real science program (tho I doubt you could) and learn the material.” Ok. Wow! And Dr Sarfati’s response is, “Oh really? CMI probably hires more staff with earned
doctorates in science, from secular universities at that,
than any other Christian ministry. In most people’s eyes, that would count
as a ‘real science program’.” Yes. And that point alone just highlights the fact
that if you believe that God created recently, you’re not being anti-scientific or ‘rejecting
modern science’ as is claimed. Many of our scientists at Creation Ministries
International, by the way, were former evolutionists and believed in millions of years. That’s right. You know, it was by reading Scripture and
studying the evidence for a recent creation that they came to change their minds, against
all of their training and education. A recent creation isn’t the default position
of the uneducated. These scientists carefully examined both sides,
comparing all the arguments. For those of you who aren’t scientists but
believe in a recent creation, you’re in good company. So, the next statement in the email is, well,
strange to say the least. He writes, “Consider—the percentage of
scientists who believe the Earth is young is smaller than the percentage of people who
would be clinically insane in the same population. ALERT!! I.e., in order to claim that there is a debate
at all, you will have to have more people on ‘your side’ of the debate than the
percentage of clinically insane. You don’t.” And Dr Sarfati responds, “Another example
of the illogic of anti-creationism: before it was ‘data … does not give a
living [—–] what anyone thinks’, but now you want us to care about what others think! … Apparently truth is now decided by majority vote,
despite all the times when the majority was wrong. For example, we should still believe in the phlogiston
theory of combustion and absolute geocentrism.” He includes a link in this section to a fascinating
article, it’s at creation.com/scientists-wrong. It deals with a good question that relates
to the subject we’re talking about today: Can all those scientists be wrong? And, the short answer is: Science, or truth, for that
matter, isn’t determined by majority vote. The article lists a number of infamous examples
where the majority of scientists and thinkers in the past were wrong. In fact, it’s probably fair to say that
every scientific breakthrough begins with a minority position – that’s why it’s
called a breakthrough! That’s why it’s a breakthrough, yes. And it’s kinda arrogant to think that that
type of thing (with the majority of scientists being wrong) couldn’t happen today. I mean, after all, Jesus didn’t teach that majority opinion
is what you should base your life on. He actually taught that people should base
their life on truth, and by doing so their lives would be able to withstand life’s difficulties. Yes, that’s in Matthew 7 where Jesus says,
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man
who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and
the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded
on the rock.” Yeah, there’s no mention of following majority
opinion there. Build your life on truth. No, there isn’t. And in that “Can all those scientists be wrong?” article, there’s a great quote from Michael Crichton… Michael Crichton – the Jurassic park guy! Yes, he’s an author but before that he had
a career in medicine and in science and he said: “Let’s be clear: the work of science
has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one
investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are
verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science.” Cool. I wonder if that would apply to the
climate change debate? Ah yeah… let’s not go into that right now. Alright. We’re going to take a break and we’ll
be back with some closing comments. Looking for a single resource that
totally destroys evolution? You need Evolution’s Achilles Heels! Authored by 9 PhD scientists, the Evolution’s
Achilles Heels project involved examining areas evolutionists feel are their scientific
strengths, such as: Natural Selection, Genetics and DNA, the Fossil Record, and Radiometric Dating. Discover how these areas, and others, are actually
massive scientific weaknesses for evolution. Get Evolution’s Achilles Heels, the
evolution Master Blaster! Order your copy at CREATION.com. Welcome back. Ok, let’s just look at one more statement
from the email that Robert writes. He says, “You have Kurt Wise disease.” And Dr Sarfati responds, “Is this a new clinical diagnosis? Dr Wise has described an experiment where
he chopped out every verse of Scripture that is contradicted by evolution or billions of
years, and found that there was nothing left to hold his Bible by two fingers without it
falling apart. That should be enough for any professing Christian, because Jesus said,
‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) Another excellent point to consider. Far from harming Christianity, when we take
God’s Word straightforwardly, drawing the meaning from the text, using standard hermeneutics, we get a recent creation by God in 6 days,
and a global flood. And today, that biblical truth is supported
by mountains of scientific observations. Christianity is an evidence-based faith, not a blind faith. Yes, that’s exactly right. Well, we hope that you’ve been encouraged
by some of today’s content, especially for those of you who have been looked down on
because you believe (just like we do) that the Bible teaches a recent creation, in six
days, followed by a global flood. Yes, those truths don’t fly in the world
of academia, I mean, we get that, but they’re true anyway. In a related way, there are other truths that
today’s academia think are foolish too, and those truths are much more important to
get right than the age of the earth debate. And that’s called the ‘foolishness of
the cross’, right? Paul wrote to the church in Corinth saying,
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being
saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … For the foolishness of God is wiser than
men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” And that’s a good reminder to stay true to God’s Word, even if all the ‘smart’ people say it’s wrong. If you need some encouragement in your faith
get Creation magazine. It comes out 4 times a year and it’s like
a constant feed of nourishment to your faith. Yeah, it’s like a drip-feed, intravenous feed, or whatever, of nourishment and truth coming into your life. If you’ve never seen it before – you’ve
never seen Creation magazine – you can view a digital copy online, for free (a sample copy). Go to creation.com/free-mag and you can flip
through it there online. If you like it, subscribe. You can share the digital copy, when you subscribe
with 5 different people in your family, or have it on 5 different devices. Yeah, smartphone, laptop, desktop, that kind of thing. We’d love to hear from you! If the show has helped you to understand more
about science or the Bible – that kind of thing – send us a note. You can use the feedback section there on
the website, creation.com. Or if you’re watching this on YouTube, put
a comment in on YouTube; some of those comments are encouraging. And then we’ll see you next week. Remember – science supports Scripture.

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 53 comments

  1. I know that if it wasn't for creation apologetics (biblically accurate) I would've abandoned my faith during highschool.

    Reply
  2. It is so sad that so many people conflate science with the conclusions made by scientists…

    Thanks for the video; I've been saying this sort of thing to atheists for years… Christians agree with science, we agree with evidence, Christians have studied it and have no problems with it at all, the differences that Christians have with the secularists however is in the interpretation of the data derived by science.

    Science is merely the methodology by which one obtains data; data is always neutral, and all data must be interpreted. Science itself does not draw conclusions based on the data that it produces, nor can it; it is people who draw conclusions, and no person is absolutely unbiased. We all have the same data: the same rocks, the same trees, the same stars, the same archaeology, history, and so on, but the secularist and the Christian each start their investigations with different presuppositions. Our presuppositions inform our worldviews, and it is our worldviews that drive us to make vastly different conclusions based upon the evidences that we see, and conclusions are neither scientific nor unscientific, rather, conclusions are merely a reflection of the individual’s concept of the data as viewed through his worldview – this is how one person can look at a particular data set and conclude “common descent,” while the Christian looks at the same data set and concludes “common Designer," and the same is true on issues such as the age of the earth.

    Reply
  3. What one meant to tear apart, was used to further build up! Great job. The ones easily offended have made a religion from "science" without even realizing it. Keep it up, and take care.

    Reply
  4. I can't believe some people could think it's damaging, I see it damaging to believe in the unscientific belief that a single cell can evolve into a human ahaha

    Reply
  5. Sadly so much of the scientific theories today are bandwagoned generation after generation applying bias that then prevents the theories from being disproven because they change evidence or reject evidence in an attempt to maintain their own view. Namely one that they aren't accountable, that life is meaningless, that they don't matter. A philosophy that is so stupid and foolish, that I shake my head whenever I talk to someone who advocates it.

    Reply
  6. Kent Hovind saved my faith, but you people at CMI build my faith everyday with the free daily email. Thank you so much!

    Reply
  7. In one of his podcasts, Dr Michael Heiser tells of meeting Dr Mary Schweitzer and having a lengthy conversation with her about the soft tissue discovery. He says she is a Christian and her discovery actually made her reconsider her young earth beliefs. It's getting confusing.

    Reply
  8. When I was saved, born again, I was in college and had heard all sorts of evolution in biology and botany but it was at that point I realized I believed the Bible and not evolution because if Genesis is not true and correct as it is written then I could not have faith in any of the other books of the Bible. I knew I believed God not men.

    Reply
  9. I would just like to encourage the team at Creation.com to keep up the good work. In my book "Evolution: what Dawkins did not tell you" I held the position that evolution theory did not stand up to scientific scrutiny but I still thought the universe was old. I have since realised, through programs such as this, and my own independent research, that the evidence overwhelmingly favours a young earth. I am happy that the apologetics movement is catching the attention of some young ones and keeping them from losing their faith. I wish I had the resources to start an apologetics ministry in London where I spend considerable time.

    Reply
  10. Common sense just isn't common any more…I have listen to Craig many times and he seems to have outsmarted himself…He sounds intelligent on the surface, but, the more I have listened to him, the less intelligent he, (and others like him), sound…
    1 Corinthians 3:19"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

    Reply
  11. Congratulations guys on the nomination.
    I hope you win. Truly you deserve it imho. 🙂
    And great episode. What a stupid claim. It's like saying the Bible damages Christianity or Christianity damages Christianity. 😑
    Personally I see those type of people as weak , gullible fools. Lacking courage.
    You guy's have real strength, wisdom and courage. And I respect that alot.

    As for the author of the letter. What a disrespectful little so-and-so. And that smug little WLC. 😑
    (How could they be rather smart in one sense, yet so stupid in another?)
    Sometimes I feel like ordering sone of my men to go teach them some respect. I could. 😉
    Maybe not the most Christian thing I know. I'm working on it. ☺

    Reply
  12. I don't need to be right, but I believe young earth creationists will be proven right in the end. Main thing is I just hope the others come to Christ.

    Reply
  13. 12:02 you really teach Christ-MASS as the birth of Jesus ? Thats sad, even the Bible warns us about the custom with the tree (Nimrod/Osiris as Idol, Idol worship). Dec. 25th is the birthday of the sungod Baal and not of Jesus.

    (Luk 2:8) "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."

    Couldnt be December, too cold.

    But I of course still love your show :), God bless for your overall good work.

    Reply
  14. Many years ago I promised myself I would believe whatever I had the hard evidence to back up no matter whether I wanted to believe it or not. Easier said than done because I had to change and honor my promise. Soup-to-man evolution, which I once believed, is a joke. Those that believe fail pathetically whenever they are challenged. I don't go to church, but I do believe in the bible because it has proven itself true. Can't believe how stupid I was. Yep, I still do stupid things at times, but believing in evolution is pure stupid.

    Reply
  15. Note: the emailer said science doesn't have an opinion as he was suggesting that science supported his opinion? Holy hypocrisy Batman.

    Reply
  16. As an unbeliever in my youth going to private schools being taught evolution as a fact I remember having questions seeing contradictions in what these teachers were teaching me. All I know is that in the last 2 decades you guys have answered those questions I had back then and showing me that "In the beginning God DID create the heavens and the earth", and that there really was a world wide flood in the days of Noah.
    I've even gone as far as testing some of what you guys revealed and have walked away satisfied with the results I have seen.
    No matter what the world throws at you keep up the good work. The Word of God has proven beyond doubt that HE is Truth and His Word is True.

    Reply
  17. How old is a fossil? Easy. It's as old as the rock its found in. How old is the rock? Easy to see! It's as old as the fossil found in it. Simple, no? And that's how it was decided centuries ago when geology decided to split off from the Bible. It's still an uneducated guesswork by people who always seem to be reaching for wealth and prestige, not knowledge.

    Reply
  18. Epigenetics explains Jacobs sheep.🤔I was just praying about this! God has been answering my prayers within days here lately. Astonishing! I truly believe we will never exhaust the Bible here or in Heaven. I believe once we have our glorified minds and bodies in conjunction with access the libraries there; oh how fun. To soar through the cosmos and see colours on steroids… Eye has not seen nor ear heard the wonderful things He has prepared fornthose who love Him. Can't wait. Wow🤗

    Reply
  19. Could the chemicals we are being sprayed with(geo-engineering aka chem trails) shut off certain genes? If so, that would explain alot. See also Charlotte Isserbys; the head of the Debt of Edu. during Reagan era, who came across evidence showing the intentional dumbing down of our children in the public schools. She wrote a tell all book..

    Reply
  20. No words to describe what your ministry is doing..Excellent stuff! Jesus was against the majority of opinions and the majority refused him because he spoke truth and they didnt want to face truth so dont be shocked when you see the majority against you!

    Reply
  21. Appeal to Authority is the MOST used rebuttal against creationism and probably the most frustrating part about debating these people. I don’t care if 100% of a group of people think 2+2=5. Evidence would show you otherwise: let’s talk about the evidence!

    Reply
  22. Biblical creationists do not ignore modern science. That is nonsense. He is wrong about soft tissue and red blood cells don't prove anything. It proves they are not millions of years old, not even several thousand years old. As for data or evidence, evidence has to be interpreted on the basis of one's world's view . It is not nonsense that the world is less than 10 years old.

    Reply
  23. Because of the Evolution debate, real scientists had to explore what we really did not need to know about to have faith in our salvation through Christ. I first believed in my salvation in Christ before I could refute what I had been taught in school for 10 years. Then ironically, at a book sellers convention at the very college that had tried to put down biblical creation, I met a couple who sold numerous books about scientific creationism. I was so enthralled by these books and now 35 years later I am wanting to teach the youth group at our local church the truth they have been kept from. Faith is truly in God alone but now it is time to refute the lies of the deceived. God please help us to reach these lost people with your love!

    Reply
  24. This was my Reply to an evolutionist that said Evolution is not a religion.
    Can you show me the scientific peer reviewed paper that shows they have tested and observed the big bang then other scientists somewhere else in the world that have used the same method to test and Observe the big bang again, that is called reproducing it that is called Science. That is why it is called a theory.

    If the Speed of light is the Fastest thing in the universe and then the Inflatton expanded to the Size of a hundred thousand light years in the first second of the big bang, That shows the speed of light wasn't always constant, can you show me the scientific peer reviewed paper that shows scientists Observing inflattons popping into existence from quantum fluctuations, no you can't you have faith that the inflatton was a real thing, that it expanded billions of times faster than the speed of light, The definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen or proven.

    Can you show me the scientific peer reviewed paper showing Scientists Observing a single celled organism Forming and coming to life through purely Random naturalistic processes then some scientists somewhere else in the world Observing the same thing.

    Can you show me the scientific peer reviewed paper that shows Scientists Observing a Single celled Organism evolving into a Reptile.

    Can you show me all the transitional fossils that lead to all the Creatures in the Cambrian layer, and don't say they were to soft to be preserved because we have jellyfish preserved in fossils, Jellyfish are as soft as it gets, and bacteria preserved in fossils Bacteria are pretty soft like a jellyfish as well.

    Can you show me all the Transitional fossils leading to Dinosaurs.

    Can you show me all the transitional fossils leading to Fish.

    Can you show me all the transitional fossils leading to say, Erm, BATS.

    Can you show me all the transitional fossils leading to Birds, archaeopteryx has been completely debunked if you want me to show you how no top scientists support archaeopteryx as a transitional you just have to ask.

    Everything has been evolving for billions of years there is trillions upon trillions of fossils in the geological layers that are about half a mile deep to 1.5 miles deep set in great sheets of SEDIMENTARY rock that run clear across the Planet going from continent to continent there should be billions and billions of transitional fossils we should be tripping over them everywhere.

    Can you show me all this.

    No you can't,, you have faith that all this happened you have no hard factual scientific evidence for any of this.

    Something needs to be tested observed then repeated to be Provable Science, A theory isn't a Fact a Fact is a Hypothesis that had preliminary tests, if it shows promise it becomes a theory, then you need to test it again if you can observe it happening the way you thought you need to reproduce it if you observe your theory working how you thought it would again and again, then you give that formula to other scientists around the world, if they test it and repeat it and they observe exactly what you observe, it then "may" become a scientific fact or even a scientific law, Like the Law of Gravity throw a Fig into the sky it will always fall to the ground it can't go up under it's own power, if others throw a fig into the air and that fig falls back down, if that testing formula is repeated and observed by many people, than Gravity becomes a scientific fact in this case a scientific Law which is unbreakable, That is what science is.

    Science isn't just imagining something, then saying a magic dot popped into existence from a quantum fluctuation 13.7 billion years ago then started expanding and expanding until it created everything, That is not a Theory it's a Weak flaccid hypothesis that can never be tested for all time, These things are not theories, they're imaginative hypotheses, most scientists are evolutionists because they all have their piggy snouts in the trough of funding to research things that can never be tested or observed for all time, it is basically the greatest scam on Earth generating trillions in funding.

    Evolution is based on Faith that it happened, The definition of Faith is believing in something that cannot be seen or proven.

    Reply
  25. I find the statement of William Lane Craig shocking that he believes in millions/billions of years of "from the goo, through the zoo, to you" evolution.

    Reply
  26. Young earth creationism is one of the best arguments against belief in the Bible. Now, I realize that most Christians actually accept science yet cling to belief in the Bible by employing figurative/metaphorical and "allegorical" interpretations to the Bible. (In other words, most Christians disagree with young earth creationists.) But it is creationists themselves who explicitly argue that if the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is scientifically wrong, then the Bible is wrong. On this specific point, creationists are right. The literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story (and the worldwide flood myth) is scientifically wrong, which proves that the Bible teaches things that are wrong. Exactly. And that's how creationism damages Christianity, because creationism itself argues against believing in the Bible.

    Reply
  27. The narrators in the video state: "We don't think science is wrong, as we're accused of thinking."

    And that statement itself is a blatant falsehood. "Biblical creationists" – i.e., young earth creationists – think astronomy is wrong, physics, astrophysics is wrong, geology is wrong, geophysics is wrong, paleontology is wrong, and everything in biology in regard to biological evolution is wrong. Young earth creationists not only deny the scientific results of the tens of thousands of scientific research articles published in the professional science literature of astronomy, physics, and geology over the last hundred years (in geology, it's actually the last two hundred years of published scientific research) in regard to the antiquity of the universe and the earth, but they're all the time making arguments based on the delusional premise that none of that published scientific research even exists.

    So the charade that these guys are engaging in when they say "We don't think science is wrong, as we're accused of thinking" is merely laughable.

    Reply
  28. Guys….the earth is really old…..you have to be seriously retarded to think it is only 6,000 (ish) years old.
    Even with rudimentary geology you have to accept it is very old.

    Reply
  29. Your core argument, that this is a history question and not a science question, is fallacious at best. History isn't a matter of taking the word of historical accounts as truth. A huge and vital component to the study of history is the study of the reliability of the sources we have for history. Immense amounts of time and effort are expended discussing that reliability, cross-referencing it with archaeology, and filling in the gaps with chemistry (testing materials found at human settlements), physics (radiometric dating), geology (paleo-landscapes) and other fields. No professional historian says "well, this account said such and such happened, so it must have happened". Be that Caesar, Heroditus, or Moses.

    We rely on other sciences to evaluate the truth of these claims. In particular we rely on those sciences to tell us things the texts don't. And I'm not just talking about Biblical. We do this with literally every event we can find corroborating evidence for and we treat everything we haven't found evidence for as at least partially suspect.

    So no, this is not a history vs science question. It's a science question about history. And history has always been treated this way. And the science doesn't just strongly suggest, but insists upon the existence of our universe, our planet, and our species prior to 6,000 years or 10,000 years.

    But even if we don't cite the numerous scientific sources that point to Earth existing pre-"creation", we have extant writing from the near east and Egypt that pre-dates it. We have civilizations that thrived before, during, and after the supposed flood, evidence against the mass enslavement of Israelites in Egypt, strong suggestions that at the very least the exodus couldn't have happened anywhere near how the Bible describes it. That's history. It's validating past events the same way we did with Troy, Gaul, Babylon, and Pompeii. All of which were written about, and all were treated as suspect at least on the details until evidence pointed otherwise. Troy we didn't believe even existed until evidence for it was discovered. So don't tell me it's "history". Taking a book's word for it, unquestioned, is not history. It's reckless credulity.

    Reply
  30. How do we know that the earth is only 6,000 years old? After all, it relies solely on the basis of counting generations of people back to Adam. We know that not all people are mentioned in the biblical text. For example, Cain gets sent away after murdering his brother and he goes to a city. A City? Yes, there is a city. Now, since Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman, as it says in Genesis, where did all those people in the city come from? Ought they not be counted in the generations?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *